In FrontPage this morning I recount a conversation I had during my recent time in The Hague for the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference, and explore some of its implications:
I recently spoke at the Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference in The Hague, which focused on Europe's growing immigration crisis and imminent Islamization; Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, Daniel Pipes, Douglas Murray and others were also featured speakers. The first night we were in The Hague there was a reception for us at the American Embassy. The new Ambassador, Roland E. Arnall, hadn't arrived yet, but I had a pleasant conversation with our host, Deputy Chief of Mission Chat Blakeman.Blakeman introduced me to an official of the Dutch Ministry of Integration, who spends her days in dialogue with Dutch imams and other Muslim leaders. We began a wide-ranging discussion about the nature of the jihad threat and the proper response to it. In the course of this I asked her how many Muslim leaders she encountered who were ready to lay aside attachment to the Sharia, accept the Dutch governmental and societal structure and the parameters of Dutch pluralism, and be willing to live in Dutch society as equals to, not superiors of, non-Muslims indefinitely. She told me that there were only very few, but insisted that we had to work with those few, and indeed had to place our faith and hope in them, for otherwise the future was impossibly bleak. I asked her if she had read the Qur'an. She told me no, she hadn't, and wouldn't, because she didn't want to lose all hope -- and because whatever was in it, she still had to work to find some accord with the Muslim leaders, no matter what.
I urged her to ask the imams with whom she spoke questions that made their loyalties clear, insofar as they would answer them honestly. I urged her to ask them whether they would like to see Sharia implemented in the Netherlands at any time in the future, and whether they were working toward that end in any way, peaceful as well as violent. I asked her to ask them whether they would be content to live as equals with non-Muslims indefinitely in a Dutch pluralistic society, or whether they would ultimately hope to institute Islamic supremacy and the subjugation of non-Muslims.
She couldn't ask them those questions, she told me. Such questions would immediately put their relationship on a confrontational plane, when cooperation was what they wanted, not confrontation. But, I sputtered, you're not getting cooperation as it is. The confrontation is already upon us. What is to be gained by pretending that it isn't happening?I don't envy this articulate and intelligent young lady her job. But her remarks reminded me of a message I received not long ago, after I had criticized former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid's bit of Wall Street Journal puffery about how Islam is really a religion of peace. A reader took me to task for "suggesting that Islam is irredeemable in some sense." He asked: "if we assume this to be true, what is to be done. What would Mr. Spencer suggest that this or any American president do to deal with this reality. Wahid was thought to be a step in the right direction when he was president of the extremely large population of Indonesia, but if he is not much more than a 'trumped-up counterfeit,' where do we go from here."
Where do we go from here? We go to reality. We stop deceiving ourselves and allowing ourselves to be deceived by others. If Wahid was being disingenuous about the teachings of Islam, then he doesn't offer Westerners hope. He offers them a weak reed that will collapse when they need it the most. Why? Because Muslims who are attracted by the siren song of jihad will see through his pleasing platitudes and recognize how slim a case he really has with reference to the Islamic texts. Westerners can be fooled by him, and Muslims can't. The young lady in the Dutch Ministry of Integration, despite her best efforts to ignore or deny this reality, kept coming up against it: she found that only a small minority of Muslim leaders in Holland were at all interested in working toward integration.
Eventually the Dutch Ministry of Integration and other administrative bodies in the Western world are going to have to come to grips with the implications of that fact, and with the implications of other facts about Islamic jihad that so far they have preferred to pretend did not exist. What would I suggest that the President do about this reality? I would suggest that he acknowledge it as a reality. That he address the nation and the world, and tell them that the United States is going to lead the resistance to jihad and Sharia supremacism in the name of equality of rights and dignity of all peoples. That any state that oppresses non-Muslims or denies them equality of rights in any way will receive no American aid whatsoever. That any state that allows the idea that Muslims must make war against non-Muslims until they either convert to Islam or submit to the Islamic social order will be no friend of the United States. That the idea that the U.S. Constitution should one day be replaced by Islamic Sharia, whether by violent or non-violent means, will be understood within the United States as seditious.
The Pim Fortuyn Memorial Conference was one small effort to bring Dutch officials, and ultimately the West at large, to confront the realities of our world that the world is doing all it can to deny. Bat Ye'or spoke about how European officials themselves had brought Eurabia into being by encouraging immigration while eschewing assimilation at the insistence of the Arab League. Only now are Europeans realizing that their culture, their soul, has been sold by their leaders for oil, and the jihad is upon them.
It is a reality so bleak that it is no wonder that most officials prefer fantasy. But they won't be able to maintain their comfortable illusions much longer.
During your chat with the Integration Minister, did Daniel Pipes briefly appear to interject: 'so would madame prefer education by death', before heading off to the cocktail lounge?
"...I would suggest that [the President] acknowledge it as a reality. That he address the nation and the world, and tell them that the United States is going to lead the resistance to jihad and Sharia supremacism in the name of equality of rights and dignity of all peoples. That any state that oppresses non-Muslims or denies them equality of rights in any way will receive no American aid whatsoever. That any state that allows the idea that Muslims must make war against non-Muslims until they either convert to Islam or submit to the Islamic social order will be no friend of the United States. That the idea that the U.S. Constitution should one day be replaced by Islamic Sharia, whether by violent or non-violent means, will be understood within the United States as seditious." -Robert Spencer
Do we have the beginnings of a platform?
It is transparently necessary for the president to say all this and more. But I shan't hold my breath.
"That any state that oppresses non-Muslims or denies them equality of rights in any way will receive no American aid whatsoever."
-- from the article above
But what about that Islamic school in Indonesia with all those smiling children (even those cutely hijabbed little girls) who surrounded Condoleeza Rice, and that American taxpayers are so delighted to be supporting, because, she apparently believes, they must share the Bush Administration's conviction that this is the way to go, for "moderate" Islam is always and everywhere to be encouraged. She is quite wrong. The American public is far beyond the Administration in grasping that there is something about Islam that needs to be discussed, and not made the object of ostentatious avoidance or misrepresentation.
The Bush-Rice policy is based on ignorance of Islam, rigidity -- possibly born of embarrassment at the magnitude of the waste and failure of the messianic policy to turn Iraq into a Light Unto the Muslim Nations, timidity about facing up to the kind of responsiblities, especially toward the Europeans, that a full recognition of the nature of the menace posed by the belief-system of Islam would entail, and finally, an inability -- much overlooked and underestimated -- to use words well, so as to frame things correctly, to identify, even using the art of obliquity and indirection where necessary, to get out the right message -- to Infidels and to Believers alike.
Because of this timidity and rigidity and stupidity and cupidity (For Spanish, Press 1. For English, Press 2. Now, whether you have pressed either 1 or 2, do google "The Esdrujula Explanation" and "Posted by Hugh" on your lunch hour. Thank you.) of successive American administrations, it is now established policy, for the current Adminisetration, that nothing can be said or done to offend those "moderates" within Islam so that they do not, in reaction, metamorphose into "immoderates," the current possessors of power in Wahsington have decided that they must never ever identify for the good of the public, the members of that public being those to whom that American government has a duty to protect, and, when necessary, in cases of widespread ignorance and confusion about the nature and scope and duration of the menace, a duty to instruct as well.
Rice is hopeless. Bush is hopeless. They are hallucinators. They did not know a thing about Islam on 9/11/2001. That is okay. That is explicable. But what is not explicable, is that on the Ides of March, 2006, they still appear not to know very much. Not enough. Not nearly enough.
And that is not okay.
That is unacceptable.
"I asked her if she had read the Qur’an. She told me no, she hadn’t, and wouldn’t, because she didn’t want to lose all hope"
Eh????????? It's as if she knows what's in there but daren't actually open the damned thing.
In any case, all these Imans want to conquer Europe by demographics and will lie through their teeth (al-Taqiyya) to reach that goal.
Surely this woman must realise that talk of integration is hopeless. Demographics is the important issue and I don't see that been addressed anywhere in Europe.
Those Islamic clerics must be laughing themselves silly at our stupidity.
Hugh comments: "Rice is hopeless. Bush is hopeless. They are hallucinators. They did not know a thing about Islam on 9/11/2001. That is okay. That is explicable. But what is not explicable, is that on the Ides of March, 2006, they still appear not to know very much. Not enough. Not nearly enough. "
True, very true. Name one US political leader that really gets it and is willing to take a stand. I can't think of a one. Our political leaders'ignorance and lack of awareness of Islam four and one half years after 9/11 is frightening.
I bought the Legacy of Jihad a few months ago and it is a great source for research. I have learned so much from Jihad watch and its many links.
It is amazing how the description of dhimmi dress from Spencer and other sources is so correct. I have a photo of my great grandfather who was from Eastern Thrace and he fits their description to the T. I wish there was way I could post his photo here.
I think that they are right and Cyprus is a good example. 200,000 native Greeks were forced out of the northern half of the island only to have the north colonized by 100,000 Turks from Anatolia. There was an article in Greek America Magazine about one of the Greek islands, can't recall the name of the island, being forced into becoming part of Turkey. Due to a treaty agreement in Lausanne, I think. The Turks started to send over Turkish colonist and forced the native Greeks into second class citizenship or dhimmitude. Now the island is mostly if not all Turkish, hmmm what happened to the native Greeks? According to the article many fled the island due to the prejudice and discrimination of their dhimmi status.
Organizations like CAIR would like us to believe that forums like jihad watch creates Islamophobia in its reader. I can only speak for myself but I do not think this is true and I bear no anger or hatred towards Turks or Muslims. If they are truly moderate then they have a responsibility to condem the actions of the radical- why arn't they?? I have already found the answer here in several articles.
If anyone is a fringe group in our nation, they are!!! They do not represent the values of most Americans, which is largely Christian or secular.
I wish there was way I could post his photo here.
You can if you want, eaglecap.
Just upload it at Image Shack and then post the URL here.
http://www.imageshack.us/
I asked her if she had read the Qur’an. She told me no, she hadn’t, and wouldn’t...
["What would you say... you do here?" - Office Space]
... because she didn’t want to lose all hope -- and because whatever was in it, she still had to work to find some accord with the Muslim leaders, no matter what. - from the article
Reading the Quran would make her job a lot easier, as she'll find out the only "accord" there can be (other than a charred Honda or two in the troubled suburbs of Paris) is found in Sura 9, verse 29: "...until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
All further attempts at "integration" hinge on accepting or attempting to thwart that mandate in Islam.
Robert and Hugh -
For some reason the link to Front Page takes one to comments there -- not directly to your recounting of the conversation
Brilliant piece by Robert -- says exactly what needs to be said, no more, no less. We should send his article's list of desiderata, and maybe the article itself, to every person in Congress.
But, it is her job, she chose it. She is part of the government, and the main role of the government is to protect the safety of its citizens. It is her job to ask the Imams those questions. To do otherwise is to be a fireman and stand outside watching a building burn, or to be a policeman standing silent as a mugging takes place in front of them. It is called, it should be called, dereliction of duty.
Rebecca JW said
This should not be considered good-natured ribbing. In all due sincerity, we really need a candidate who will state clearly and unemotionally and without hatred what the true situation is with Islam. It is by far the biggest foreign policy issue of the day, and nobody, from either party, has it nearly right.
Remember, you're "marginalized" by the media, therefore you don't have to worry about what would happen if you actually won. Besides, Karl Rove will ensure that you're photographed in flagrante delicto with six Vegas strippers, in a tub filled with Jello (tm) and whipped cream, in a room full of black leather accoutrements (borrowed from his private collection, but that is beside the point). The bad news: Your personal reputation will be ruined; the good news: the message of jihad will be irrevocably spread far and wide.
But seriously, think about it...
Thanks for the photo of 2 very informed and badly needed authors(both of
whom I've bought a book from).
I'd like to include a link to a website that I found to be very good. It's from
a decidedly Christian perspective but it thoroughly covers Mo and islam and
points out the inconsistencies and pitfalls of both.
It's a good read and might
be useful to pass along in informing people
http://bibleprobe.com/muhammad.htm
I just finished Bostom's "Legacy of Jihad" and it should be required reading for policy makers and academics everywhere. It is Clear, balanced, succinct and impossible for the Islamophiles to refute. However, could anyone imagine Bush, Rice, Blair or any of that bunch actually reading something useful?
"I asked her if she had read the Qur’an. She told me no, she hadn’t, and wouldn’t, because she didn’t want to lose all hope"
how can we fight the war on terror if our leaders, and those in government do not want to learn what type of enemy we up are against. will it take another
9-11?
True, very true. Name one US political leader that really gets it and is willing to take a stand. I can't think of a one. Our political leaders'ignorance and lack of awareness of Islam four and one half years after 9/11 is frightening. Posted by: ARAKIS
Other than his once famous comments on Mecca, I don't know where Tom Tankredo stands, and in any case, he is not running for president. He could be a VP if the winner of the GOP nomination determines that he needs to get the anti-illegal-immigration crowd behind him to have any chance of getting past Hilary, who right now is ahead on that particular issue. Newt Gingrich seems most well informed, but the mere fact that he isn't nationally likeable (I don't see why, since I like him) stops him right at the gate. Condi has shown no signs of running, although there is nothing to stop the winning GOP candidate from picking her as a VP, unless the borders issue really turns ugly for the GOP.
Of the front runners, Mitt Romney, the runner up in this weekend's Memphis straw poll, has shown the balls to go after mosques if they are suspected of criminal activity: one hope that that spine would be carried over into his dealings with the Mohammedans internationally. McCain is even worse than Bush - by forcing the president to sign the torture ban, he's made it clear that he doesn't mind making our troops fight with one hand tied behind their back. Not something we need in a GOP candidate.
While Rudy Giuliani has repeated the ROP spin, his track record seems to show that when confronted with the truth, he faces it, instead of pretending that it isn't there. Despite his Liberal stance on some issues, he has a reputation of enforcing the law, therefore it shouldn't be difficult for him to take a strong stand on the borders issue and run with it. Similarly, if confronted with the fact that Islam is the issue, don't be surprised if he tries to include laws that make it more difficult to practice Islam.
Right now, he doesn't look like he is running, and may indeed end up not running, given his lucrative consultancy job that he has. However, I don't buy the argument that he is unelectable for the nomination the way McCain is. Unlike McCain, he hasn't been going around sleeping with Democratic leaders, and the issues that traditionally do work against him - abortion (partial-birth abortion is no longer an issue, since it's already banned), gay marriage, etc. would fade into the background if national security (like border control) was the main issue.
One more point. It's been said that the borders issue is the one that is behind GOP voters being lukewarm about the president and even the GOP congress. But given the poll last week about general perceptions about Islam, I have a strong instinct that this refusal to recognize Islam as a threat is the real issue behind voter dis-illusionment that may come back to bite a lot of congresspersons this November. Anyone else sense this?
Previously, one would have been under the impression that the concern over and opposition to Islam in this country would be restricted to GOP voters. However, on J/W (and who knows how representative it is), I often see enough Liberal posters, who may still be on the left on other issues, economic and social, but who are fully aware of the threat posed by Islam. Can anyone tell us whether there are candidates on the Democratic side who are aware of this? Joe Lieberman comes to mind, even though he has often mirrorred the president on the issue.
It would be good if we could get this opposition to Islam on both the Democratic & Republican platforms in 2008. I'd rather see that, and let people vote on where they stand on other issues, rather than have only one party pick this issue, and anti-Jihadists on the other side having to either hold their nose voting for it, or vote against what they really stand for.
The political scene here in NZ is this: I wrote to the Prime Minister on the cartoon issue, and she asked here Trade Minister to reply.
He wrote to me that, because the cartoons were offensive to many muslims 'New Zealanders must use judgement at all times about what to say and not to say in the interests of better understanding and mutual respect'.
In other words, he is *ordering us* ('New Zealanders must') to submit to an aspect of sharia.
I am writing back for details on exactly which interpretation of the 'no depiction' rule he would like us all to follow, and how much further he is going to let the call for sharia law to go (I can't imagine that our female Prime Minister or civil unions for gay people go down too well with devout muslims).
This is gives me very little hope for NZ facing the issues, although we currently have a very low muslim population, so the threat may not be seen as so great. However, since we're told to start submitting to sharia even by this tiny minority population, with government backing, they clearly have a lot of influence.
Lilith - I don't think it's so much "they [Muslims] clearly have a lot of influence" -- Without a significant presence in NZ, perhaps something else can be found to explain it... I think it's Western delusions of moral equivalency and multi culturalism which are to blame, and their attendant problems which afflict most Western nations today.
I noticed you asked me elsewhere about the teaching of "vile" histories to US pupils (my term...) When the focus of Western minds are mainly immersed in political correctness, or obsessed with deconstructing history to find "the deeper truth" (which I call destructionism, or "new ways of looking at facts" as you put it), then our cultures and societies are destined for dismantlement to some extent. While this may have benefits (i.e. jettisoning inappropriate supterstitions or prejudices) this also makes our society susceptible to opportunistic enemies. I think aspects of these notions also make us less able to distinguish between benign and malignant new influences, since the underlying premise of multi-culturalism and relativity presuppose all beliefs to be of equal value and validity -- that there is no objective truth to be had -- and, all things being subjective, old fashioned ideas of "good" and "evil" can be thrown away as artifacts of primitive dogma --This exemplifies an irrational belief that pure rationality is achievable in human affairs, and furthermore can ultimately trump over every other human proclivity.
Yet where or when in history has this ever been true? That is, unless you believe like Marx, that history can be innovated out of existence, that the dialectic can be halted finally by some form of utopian perfectionism: communism, all-one-god-faith, (Islam), pathological non-judgmentalism, Nazism, blind equanimity to every individual human fantasy, it takes a vilage to raise a child...
Muslims are situated to exploit these malignant tendencies in the West... They can exploit our pathology to ruthlessly deconstruct "our colonial past" (as you called it) and see it solely through the lens of an economic battle between haves and have nots. (more malignant Marxism...) The Muslims, doctrinally believing they should be the "haves" of the world -- and observing that we have more than they, and further observing that many in the West agree that we are wealthy by making others poor (a truly absurd over-simplification) Muslims are convinced they must reclaim what we could only have stolen from them (since we are nothing but worthless "infidels" after all....) We, given our blind and misguided dedication to the multicultural project, invite Muslims along with all others to come and partake of our grand scheme -- to help us fashion the perfect all inclusive society. Muslims happily oblige us... They also are dedicated to wallowing in an overdone miasma of victimology, (again, something many in the West will encourage in them, and coddle them for... Think of Europe's complete unbending support for the "Palestinians"...) and these Muslim traits and exploitative tendencies all dovetail dangerously with those pseudo-liberal Western boondoggles.
So multiculturalism, moral relativism, residual marxism, and the tendency of some Westerners to masochisticallly arrogate to the Western World all of the ills of planet earth, all of these conspire to create a vortex which undermins and destroys the West, and invites the Muslims to come and help. Ms. Clarke's political attitudes aren't so much a response to Muslim influence or demands, they are an open invitation for those things. Look in Belgim, Sweden, Denmark, France to see where it all leads.
Here's a Fantasy about jihad: Paolo Bassi 'writer'/disseminator of anti-USA propaganda is an anti-jihadist! In this guy's dreams!
We say this guy needs to stop writing anti-jihad 'articles' to disseminate his pro-Socialist, anti-American propaganda. It would preferable he stopped writing altogether actually.
This guy has already made it abundantly clear that he is UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF WRITING A FACTUAL INTERPRETATION OF 20th CENTURY HISTORICAL EVENTS. He cannot keep his personal biases out of anything he writes. From a historian's standpoint this guy is useless as a writer. In the war against jihadism, he's a liability. Nobody needs to be fed untruths at such a critical juncture in history. The more we know the better we can defend ourselves. If we are being told lies that undermines our efforts.
20th century historical events include the revival of Islamic terrorist ideology. If you want to read anything
informative on this topic, read articles by other writers than ones by this guy!
This guy would have readers of Faith Freedom.Org believe that the United States started the Cold War, is responsible for the rise of global militant islamism and other blatantly false pro-Socialist agit-prop (it's usually socialists or Communists who intentionally spread historical fallacies about the United States). And alas there are a lot of people who will NOT KNOW what this guy has written about America is UNTRUE!!!! And thereby spread anti-American canard, mistakenly assuming it is the truth. No help in the war against jihad--to say the least.
Ali Sina: Are you listening?
Belgium
Infidel Pride said
I like your thinking. This has never been a Democrat vs. Republican issue, it is an Islam vs. infidel issue. Think what a message that would send if both parties agreed to put the same statement regarding Islam (or "radical religionists" or however they had to sugarcoat it) in their platforms.
That being said, I'm not aware of any Democrat (or really, any Republican) politicians who show any awareness of the issue. The Democrats have been amazingly quiet, as if they do not know how to respond. Oh sure, they'll take the opposite position of Bush and company here and there, but out of reflex, not out of any well thought out strategy. Which reminds me, time to start writing Congress again; it worked (or did it?) with the Dubai ports deal, it may work with the larger problem of jihad and dawa.
What would I suggest that the President do about this reality? I would suggest that he acknowledge it as a reality. That he address the nation and the world, and tell them that the United States is going to lead the resistance to jihad and Sharia supremacism in the name of equality of rights and dignity of all peoples. That any state that oppresses non-Muslims or denies them equality of rights in any way will receive no American aid whatsoever. That any state that allows the idea that Muslims must make war against non-Muslims until they either convert to Islam or submit to the Islamic social order will be no friend of the United States. That the idea that the U.S. Constitution should one day be replaced by Islamic Sharia, whether by violent or non-violent means, will be understood within the United States as seditious.
I will save this Robert, this should be the beging of political manifesto that should be adopted by a new political party or a coalition of from left to right.
Rebeca this is so true.
A plea to Robert Spencer:
Please stop doing what you do. ;) you make me SSOOOOOOO depressed. I love "den Nederlands". I loved their tolerance and naivete. That is all gone now. The Dutch have not attacked a house of Worship since the bloody REFORMATION! Yet within 30 years of Islamic immigration they managed to provoke the dutch to do that very thing. :( Damn them for that! Damn them for Making the Dutch what the dutch are not, Intolerant. I cant blame the dutch for being intolerant now, I blame Islam. I feel really worried for all of europe because unless things change they really do face the prospect of a "race war" or at the very least a "dualistic" society like India, where the Muslims get their own Autonomous ghettos and courts and Sectarian riots occasionally flaring up from now till the end of time. Or until it ends up like Egypt. (90% Muslim, 10% Dhimmi)
PS- Finally got around to getting P.I.G! excellent read, by exposing their master plan of imperial world dominance you probably made Imans the world over have steam blow out of thier ears. "Stupid kuffir! now we'll have to shift to stage two ahead of schedule!"
It's too bad that Mr. Spencer's simple proposal to the President is just wishful thinking, not because it wouldn't be a prudent and wise move in the right direction, but because it is too logical, simple and direct. The ACLU, CAIR, MSA, and affiliated seditionist groups, along with politicians, NGO's, the UN, would spin it until it became the 21st Century's American crusade against Islam. The ACLU would call it an attempt to interfere in the practice of religion, which I believe is illegal.
When directly confronted, Islamic scholars/clerics insist that there is no militant jihad or Sharia supremacism in Islam. How many debates have we heard between non-muslim Islamic scholars and muslim Islamic scholars over specific quotes from the Qur'an or passages from the Sunna exhorting the violence and supremacy of Islam? The muslim debaters obfuscate, prevaricate, and deflect, insisting that they were taken out of context, were bad translations, or relevant only to specific historical events. They resort to weak tu quoque comparisons with Christianity, or bring up their hackneyed Crusades distortions. To the ignorant or misinformed listener, they sound credible enough.
People who know nothing about Islam, and that includes most Americans, would probably believe the muslim debater, assuming that someone who practices a religion is more knowledgable than one who only studies it. How could they know that muslims are inveterate liars, or that Islam sanctions lying to "protect" Islam and muslims? Christianity forbids lying and it is unthinkable to Christians that a priest or minister would lie., but Mullahs and imams lie with no compunction.
When the framers wrote our Constitution, they had no idea that muslims would come to America with the baggage of Islam or they would have worded the First Amendment differently. Unfortunately, the First Amendment guarantees muslims the right to practice Islam and Sharia is an integral facet of Islam. Unless the First Amendment is changed to protect us from devious usurpers who exploit it, or Islam is redefined as a seditionist political movement seeking to overthrow the government of the United States and replace it with Sharia, what can we do about muslim immigration, latent jihadists living among us, and the insidious growth of the Islamic malignancy in the U.S.?
During WWII, we got rid of Shintoism by recognizing it as a fanatical cult whose members were the enemies of the United States, and who were using Shinto temples to engage in seditious activities under the protection of the First Amendment. Muslims are using mosques for the same purpose but we live in a different world now, where moral relativism and political correctness prohibit any action that even hints of being judgmental, particularly of third-world, immigrant minority groups. The bottom line is that muslims are protected under our Constitution to infiltrate our country, spread Islamic hate and dissension, threaten our security, exploit our freedoms and opportunities, and pollute our country with their anachronistic, vulgar culture and bellicose, obscene "religion."
I today read many of the articles on the Free Muslims Coalition website http://www.freemuslims.org/ . If there is any hope of Islamic reform, these are the kind of people needed.
I would suggest to all government agencies in the west that they drop dialogue with any muslim leaders who do not accept the division between religion and state, and start dialogue with and support of genuine reformers, such as the Free Muslims Coalition appears to be.